Justices say trial judge had no obligation to change plea after defendant indicated he misunderstood law.

The Seventh District Court of Appeals upheld a Lubbock man’s robbery conviction and 99-year prison sentence, saying the trial judge had no duty to withdraw a defendant’s guilty plea if the man makes statements that could prove innoncence.

Someone struck the victim, and a witness told police a truck matching the description of DeLeon’s had left the bar.

Officers found DeLeon, his truck and two women at a nearby convenience store. An officer searched one of the women and found the victim’s credit cards, cell phone, keys and some cash. The other woman said DeLeon had possession of the victim’s wallet and car keys outside the bar.

DeLeon denied having the items and accused someone else of throwing the wallet and keys into his truck.

According to the appeal, DeLeon said he pleaded guilty because he believed simply being at the scene made him guilty under the law of parties — a Texas law that states one person is criminally responsible for another’s actions if they aid and abet or conspire to commit the crime. He chose a jury to determine his punishment, but said on appeal that he testified that he wasn’t criminally responsible and pleaded guilty because he didn’t understand the law.

In his appeal, he argued Judge Brad Underwood should have changed the plea to not guilty for him.

The three-judge panel ruled Underwood had no obligation to change the plea, and noted DeLeon did not complain or raise the issue at trial.

Justice James T. Campbell wrote the decision. The appeal panel included Chief Justice Brian Quinn and Justice Mackey K. Hancock.